Login | April 26, 2024
Teen’s sex offender adjudication overturned by 9th District
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: November 19, 2015
A Summit County trial court lost its way in adjudicating a teen delinquent in a sex case, the 9th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.
A detective filed a complaint in July 2012 against J.H. in Stark County Court of Common Pleas, claiming the 17-year-old boy appeared to be a delinquent child for committing sexual imposition.
According to appellate court records, J.H. originally admitted the charge and then asked to withdraw it. The case was later transferred to Summit County because J.H. was a Summit County resident.
At the disposition hearing, the Summit County judge put J.H. on offender-specific probation and ordered psychological treatment. In addition, he was classified as a Tier 1 sexual offender registrant.
J.H. appealed, arguing the state failed to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
J.H.’s alleged victim was O.H., a 16-year-old longtime female friend. One night during a weeklong outing with their youth church group, the two sat together at a movie.
They held hands and J.H. reached his hand into O.H.’s shorts to digitally penetrate her. The girl said she pulled away from him after a few seconds and did not speak to him again. She told her mother, who filed a police report two weeks later.
During his testimony, the detective said J.H. repeatedly said O.H. had given him permission to touch her but that he still “did not feel right about what was going on.”
J.H. stated he did not touch her genitals, but only rubbed his hand across her thigh. He also told the detective he tried to put his hand in her shorts but they were too tight.
On appeal, J.H. claimed there was no evidence any sexual contact occurred or that he knew the touching that occurred was offensive or reckless.
Up until J.H. tried to touch O.H.’s genitals, there was no evidence the girl expressed any discomfort to J.H., 9th District Judge Donna J. Carr wrote in a 3-0 opinion.
“She did not stand up. She did not tell him to stop. She did not push his hand away, and there was no testimony that she squirmed or otherwise demonstrated any form of resistance,” Carr stated. “When O.H. finally said something to J.H. and pulled away from him, he stopped touching her and did not bother her any further.
“Although J.H. told O.H. not to say anything about the incident, there were several reasons why he might have done so. … Having carefully reviewed the record, we cannot conclude from the evidence presented that J.H. either knew his actions were offending O.H. or that he was reckless in that regard. The evidence supports the conclusion that two teenagers who had known each other for a number of years were experimenting with one another physically when one of them became uncomfortable and notified the other.”
The panel overruled J.H.’s other assignment of error stating the state offered no evidence to corroborate O.H.’s testimony.
The case was reversed in part and remanded.
Appellate judges Jennifer Hensal and Beth Whitmore concurred.
The case is cited In re. J.H., 2015-Ohio-4471.